I can’t say I’ve been looking forward to when this would come up. Mostly because the argument surrounding AWS has a tendency to become fractious, most farcically when you see things like female members of the party who oppose the measure getting shouted down by middle-aged men.
I’m not going to repeat the merits and flaws of AWS in much depth, that’s been covered more eloquently and with more knowledge by other people, here I want to briefly give my thoughts on some of the specifics of the motion we’re being presented. Given the past rather botched first introduction of OMOV and the Deputy Leadership changes it is good to see that this has been well drafted; there is merit in the motion submitted. I also have to consider the Liberal Youth amendment, which in line with LY policy removes AWS specifically but retains the other measures.
Original Motion
1. Any local party should be able to vote for an all-women shortlist or an all-disabled shortlist, or reserve some spaces for candidates from other under-represented groups.
2. As a minimum the three state parties should follow the Canadian Liberal Party practice of requiring the relevant Local Party to provide documented evidence to their region or state (as relevant) of a thorough search for potential candidates from under-represented groups before being granted permission to start their Westminster selection process; this should apply in those seats where the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate received more than 15% of the vote in the 2015 General Election but the seat is not held by the Liberal Democrats.
3. In Scotland, Wales and each Region of the English Party, take measures to move towards a slate of candidates that reflects the diversity of the state or region, in line with the Leader’s ambition of having at least 50% women candidates and at least 10% BAME candidates across Great Britain.
4. If any sitting MP elected in 2015 decides not to contest the next General Election, his replacement should be selected from an allwomen shortlist.
5. In Scotland, Wales, and each Region of the English Party where there are two or more non-held seats which gained 25% or more of the General Election vote in May 2015, the regions should designate as a minimum of one seat not held by a Liberal Democrat MP to select its candidate from an all-women shortlist. Where these seats are affected by boundary changes, the party’s rules on re-running selection processes will apply.
6. In addition to the one seat identified in 5. above, where the Liberal Democrat parliamentary result at the 2015 General Election was in the 10% of seats which had the highest percentage vote without returning a Liberal Democrat MP, the selection shortlist for the 2020 General Election should, subject to sufficient applications, include at least two candidates from under-represented groups.
Motion with Liberal Youth Amendments
1. Any local party should be able to reserve some spaces on its candidate shortlist for candidates from under-represented groups.
2. As a minimum the three state parties should follow the Canadian Liberal Party practice of requiring the relevant Local Party to provide documented evidence to their region or state (as relevant) of a thorough search for potential candidates from under-represented groups before being granted permission to start their Westminster selection process; this should apply in those seats where the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate received more than 15% of the vote in the 2015 General Election but the seat is not held by the Liberal Democrats.
3. In Scotland, Wales and each Region of the English Party, take measures to move towards a slate of candidates that reflects the diversity of the state or region, in line with the Leader’s ambition of having at least 50% women candidates and at least 10% BAME candidates across Great Britain.
4. If any sitting MP elected in 2015 decides not to contest the next General Election, his replacement should be from an under-represented group, subject to sufficient applications.
5. Where the Liberal Democrat parliamentary result at the 2015 General Election was in the 10% of seats which had the highest percentage vote without returning a Liberal Democrat MP, the selection shortlist for the 2020 General Election should, subject to sufficient applications, include at least two candidates from under-represented groups.
Firstly what I am most disappointed about is that while there is mention earlier in the text of those from “low socio-economic backgrounds” neither does anything to address financial barriers to selection and standing. This is particularly problematic in large area selections such as the GLA list and was talked about at length within the Deputy Leadership debate at Bournemouth. The typical response to concerns being raised about this is that ‘succeeding shows good fundraising skills’, an argument undermined by the use of personal wealth. This presents a problem both in itself, in that our Party remains dominated by those with an above-average level of wealth and from careers not representative of most of the population, and is intertwined with the issues this motion seeks to solve. When on average the BAME population of the UK is significantly less wealthy than the white population can we really hope to address our lack of BAME candidates without confronting the financial barriers to selection and standing?
Anyway to the texts as given, points 2, 3, and 6 from the original motion I take no issue with, and that in 3 the impetus is put on the regional parties is desirable. Point 1. I could potentially be persuaded to support. Though I generally lean against AWS there are some good arguments for it, and a system whereby local parties could decide at their AGM’s to use AWS for an upcoming election is something I would seriously consider supporting. However points 4 & 5 (and the system used in Scotland) include imposing the rules on local parties, and that is something I am not comfortable with. Labour’s use demonstrates that when you introduce such systems it can work to increase the power of the central party in such activities as parachuting. It could also prove damaging if it means that former-incumbents who desire to re-run are denied the opportunity, when with their local history they have the greatest chance of rewinning the seat.
The Liberal Youth amended version is not without flaws. I can only assume 4. is little more than an ambition, given it provides no clear method by which they will achieve the stated goal. It is however likely I will be supporting their amendment, as while over the past few years I have gone from vehement opposition to AWS itself to merely being disinclined towards it I am unable to support something which would so infringe local party control over selection.
If I were to be given a motion where 1. was retained with specific reference to the decision being for local party AGMs I could perhaps support it, as things are I can’t.
Squiffy Liberalism 